You know, I like to think I'm pretty open-minded as far as games go. I play every Final Fantasy that comes up and while I don't like some, I'm always willing to try the next one. I liked Legend of Mana, Heroes of Mana, Children of Mana, Sword of Mana and Dawn of Mana, which each seemed to get bashed for not being more Secret of Mana, primarily. I thought Ultima VIII: Pagan was a really interesting experiment that while I didn't like as much as V, VI and VII, thought was a worthy attempt. Even though I didn't like either of the originals, I tried the Dragon Age and Witcher sequels. Even though I've never gotten into an MMO or a 4X game, I've tried out ones that look interesting.
I don't usually balk when franchises change hands for developers. I like the portable Castlevanias better, but I thought Lords of Shadow was cool enough. Dead Rising 2 was arguably better than the first game. I thought Fallout 3 and New Vegas may have changed quite a bit from what they were, but were very strong games in any event.
I am all for keeping an open mind and trying stuff and usually have nothing but harsh words for people who, with very little information attack changes in a game series.
But there's an certain extent to where things can just rub you the wrong way. Case in point, Bomberman: Act Zero, turning bright and cheery Bomberman into grimdark first-person stuff. I mean, it was just unappealing as a concept, no matter who the developer. I'm pretty sure people would violently object if the next Yoshi's Island was made by UBISoft and turned out to be a sequel to their hideous 3DS dinosaur game.
I don't carry the belief that if an action game is 30 fps its fundamentally doomed, I think a lot of the Dynasty Warriors and Samurai Warriors never carry 30 consistently and are quite fun.
Changing a character and setting drastically CAN BE refreshing and creatively invigorating.
Even I hated Ninja Theory (I thought Heavenly Sword was nice, Enslaved was dismal), developers considered "bad" have been able to turn a new leaf before. Consider Wayforward or the people who made the first Prince of Persia reboot back in the PS2 days.
I don't have any objection to trying to make DMC more serious and story-oriented, or keep it the same. I'm ambivalent, whatever works.
Considering all that, right now, at this point in time, I think this game looks like tosh. The edginess they seem to be going for the new Dante seems like the type of edginess every 3rd rate TV show with a hack writer aims for. The old design, the new design, I don't care, it doesn't really stand out as a character design, it blends in with the trends of this generation. And you do not typically achieve greatness by blending in with the crowd. If they are aiming for an unlikable character at the fore, they're doing a great job, and I'm not against antiheroes, but there is a way to do it in a way that the story still seems compelling. This doesn't seem like it.
It's especially worrying because Enslaved seems just like Uncharted, yes the acting and animation are quite nice. But the content of the story is hackneyed, uninspired and boring. At least Uncharted stays consistent in its worldview, but Enslaved really goes into crazy land with this insane reliance developers East or West have these days of using plot twists to try to pummel gamers into thinking their game's story awe-inspiring. They don't seem to understand the twist as something to use sparingly and think deep and hard about before you do it. They don't seem to get the fundamentals of a character-led story before they have their characters get embroiled in this crazy shit they think up.
30 FPS doesn't seem like a death knell, but I'll certainly argue with anyone who puts graphic realism before gameplay smoothness. I bet you can achieve morphing environments with 60 FPS too, but that would require a little less flashiness in the graphics. Even though I enjoyed Heavenly Sword, I thought it and Enslaved really suffered from putting their priorities in the wrong place.
The movies show attacks that don't look like they smoothly link into each other, reactions that look quite awkward and nothing really looks like it builds on previous DMC games or adds anything significantly fresh to the combat. 3 had the styles and 4's devil trigger provided a welcome new slant and contrast. Perhaps the final game will be fine and something noteworthy will be there, but when I hear the developer respond in a preview that the air juggling is what distinguishes from the past games, I'm like, "Did you really play the past games?" I mean seriously, they all had that as a main emphasis.
It doesn't help that whenever the developers open their mouths, they sound pompous and full of themselves. I don't have confidence in Capcom entirely, because although yes, they made 1,3,4, they also made 2. They're not infallible. Especially because around the time this game was unveiled they made all sorts of comments that implied they didn't really understand why Western games have become so successful on consoles and had really only considered the surface elements.
.gif)
